(856 


J.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


University  of  California  •  Berkeley 

THE  PETER  AND  ROSELL  HARVEY 

MEMORIAL  FUND 


FREMONT'S  ROMANISM  ESTABLISHED. 


ACKNOWLEDGED  BY  ARCHBISHOP  HUGHES. 


HOW  FREMONT'S  NOMINATION  WAS  BROUGHT  ABOUT. 

Hughes,  Seward,  Fremont,  and  the  Foreigners  —  a  most  foul  coalition. 

We  have  linked  together  the  names  of  Bishop  Hughes,  Win.  H.  Seward,  and 
John  C.  Fremont,  and  charge  upon  this  trio  a  most  foul  coalition,  a  coalition 
which  was  projected  in  the  city  of  Washington  by  the  Seward  politicians,  the 
friends  and  advisers  of  Fremont,  and  the  agents  of  Bishop  Hughes,  during  the 
past  spring,  and  which  has  been  covered  up,  concealed,  and  hidden  from  the 
people  until  its  consummation  was  realized,  their  mutual  pledges  to  each  other 
fulfilled,  and  the  object  for  which  it  was  concocted  seemed  almost  within  their 
grasp.  For  months  past  the  Republican  leaders  have  been  accustomed  to  as- 
semble, night  after  night,  in  their  rooms  in  that  city;  and  there  discuss  the 
merits  and  prospects  of  their  various  aspirants  for  the  presidency,  and  to  ar- 
range the  details  of  the  campaign. 

Among  these  political  tricksters  and  Garrison  Abolitionists,  Seward  had 
many  enthusiastic  admirers,  Chase  had  his  friends,  McLean  his  supporters, 
Banks  his  lukewarm  followers,  and  here  and  there  was  a  Haleite.  These 
were  the  five  prominent  aspirers  for  the  nomination  by  the  Philadelphia  Re- 
publican Convention,  which  finally  chose  for  its  standard-bearers,  Fremont 
and  Dayton.  Seward  was  the  choice  of  the  majority  of  the  Republicans  who 
nightly  assembled  in  that  city.  He  was  regarded  as  the  founder  of  this  fac- 
tion, the  genuine  exponent  of  its  principles,  and  as  the  fittest  bearer  of  its  flag, 
which  was  to  be  unfurled  throughout  the  north. 

The  elements  of  his  strength  consisted  in  the  union  of  the  Abolitionists  and 
the  Foreigners  under  the  lead  of  Bishop  Hughes,  and  for  a  while  his  nomina- 
tion seemed  certain,  but  the  state  elections  of  Rhode  Island,  New  Hampshire 
Connecticut,  and  various  municipal  elections  throughout  the  north,  demon- 
strated so  clearly  the  strength  of  the  North  American  vote,  and  so  clearly  the 
utter  hopelessness  of  carrying  Mr.  Seward  unless  this  American  vote  could  be  in- 
veigled into  the  support  of  the  Republican  nominee,  that  he  (Seward)  was  aban- 
doned because  of  his  anti-American  sentiments,  and  his  known  affiliation  with 
Archbishop  Hughes.  The  Republicans  had  earnestly  desired  a  union  of  the 
Abolitionists,  Foreigner,  and  Americans  north.  Without  a  union  in  these 
elements,  in  opposition  to  the  ruling  dynasty,  they  could  not  hope  for  success, 
and  that  union  upon  Seward  being  impossible,  he  was  abandoned.  Then  came 
Chase.  He  was  the  governor  of  the  great  state  of  Ohio,  and  in  the  election 
whit.h  had  terminated  in  his  success  there  had  been  a  perfect  union  of  the 
Abolitionists  and  Foreigners,  with  a  large  portion  of  the  Ohio  Americans  under 
the  lead  of  Thomas  H.  Ford. 

Upon  him  for  a  time  the  union  of  these  elements  seemed  practicable;  but 
when  it  became  perfectly  understood  that  Chase  was  a  violent  opponent  of 
American  doctrines,  and  that  the  Oiiio  Americans  had  been  inveigled  into  his 
support  by  that  arch  trickster  and  political  game-player,  Thomas  H.  Ford,  and 


that  since  the  election,  Chase  had  denounced  their  tenets,  and  deceived  them, 
he,  too,  was  abandoned.  Next  on  the  list  was  Banks.  Upon  him  there  could 
be  no  union.  Bishop  Hughes  could  not  unite  in  the  support  of  a  Massachu- 
setts Puritan.  Puritanism  he  despised,  abhorred,  and  denounced  as  a  heresy, 
as  an  insult  to  his  faith.  Besides,  Banks  professed  Americanism.  Thus  was 
N.  P.  Banks  of  Massachusetts,  ruled  off.  With  Hale  all  agreed  there  was  no 
chance.  He  had  in  him  no  elements  of  popularity.  Who  then  could  be  found 
as  a  standard-bearer  for  the  united  American  and  Catholic  forces?  It  would 
not  do  to  take  one  known  as  a  Romanist,  and  the  Catholics  would  not  have 
an  American  or  a  leading  Protestant. 

The  assembling  of  the  Cincinnati  Convention  rapidly  approached.  The  war 
between  Douglas,  Pierce  and  Buchanan  was  raging  with  fearful  violence. 
Night  after  night  the  secret  Republican  conclave  met.  Seward,  Chase  and  Hale, 
the  true  representatives  of  their  principles,  had  been  cast  aside,  arid  the  partisan 
followers  of  each  began  to  murmur;  discontent  became  manifest.  Philosopher 
Greeley  and  Chevalier  Webb,  seized  this  as  the  opportune  moment  to  urge 
the  claims  of  Seward.  Day  after  day  the  columns  of  the  Tribune  and  Courier 
teemed  with  their  laudations  of  William  H.  Seward. 

They  applied  the  lash  and  attempted  to  whip  his  opponents  into  his  support; 
Weed,  of  the  Albany  Journal,  cried  out  for  Seward.  Just  then  the  friends  of 
McLean,  who  had  been  silent  spectators  of  all  that  had  transpired,  presented 
his  claims.  His  fugitive  slave  decisions  were  objected.  They  were  met  with 
letters  avowing  his  adherance  to  the  Republican  doctrines.  His  long  career 
of  usefulness  and  his  character  as  a  jurist  were  prominently  set  forth.  His 
non-identity  with  any  party,  or  with  any  particular  set  of  principles,  his  high 
moral  character,  and  his  long  retirement  from  the  strife  and  bickerings  of  poli- 
tical life,  added  to  his  personal  popularity.  He  had  many  friends  and  few  en- 
emies. He  had  graced  the  legislative  halls  and  the  bench,  and  won  for  himself 
a  world-wide  reputation,  and,  though  an  American  in  his  sympathies,  he  was  the 
son  of  an  Irishman.  The  name  of  McLean  rang  throughout  the  land,  and  his 
nomination  seemed  then  a  foregone  conclusion. 

But  the  friends  of  Seward  and  Chase  were  determined  that  the  presidential 
honors  should  not  be  won  by  one  so  pure  in  morals  and  so  just  in  all  the  pri- 
vate relations  of  life.  Yet  but  few  doubted  McLean's  nomination;  his  friends 
regarded  it  as  a  "  fixed  fact,"  and  while  they  were  passively  awaiting  the  as- 
sembling of  the  convention,  Seward  and  Chase  were  secretely  devising  and 
putting  into  operatioYi  their  schemes  to  effect  his  defeat.  McLean  is  a  Metho- 
dist and  the  President  of  a  Bible  Society.  These  facts  were  sufficient  to  arouse 
the  Archbishop's  hostility.  Webb  was  directed  to  continue  to  urge  Seward's 
claims,  and  he  did  so  up  to  the  very  last  moment,  even  voting  for  him  in  the 
convention  after  his  name  had  been  withdrawn.  His  support  for  Seward  was 
intended  to  conceal  the  effort  directed  at  McLean.  Greeley  was  directed  to 
go  for  Fremont,  who  was  first  jocularly  placed  upon  the  presidential  track,  by 
a  few  political  adventurers,  and  who  was  regarded  as  a  weak  and  feeble  man, 
more  willing  to  bear  honors  than  fit  to  grace  the  presidency.  The  scheme  to 
defeat  McLean  was  well  devised.  Fremont  had  no  political  antecedents,  but 
had  recently  become  a  Republican.  He  is  the  son-in-law  of  Thomas  H.  Ben- 
ton,  was  the  son  of  a  Catholic  Frenchman,  had  been  raised  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  was  married  by  Father  Van  Horseigh,  a  foreign  Roman  Catholic  priest, 
who  was  the  pastor  of  St.  Peter's  Church  in  Washington  city,  and  who  died  a 
few  years  ago.  Fremont  holds  a  pew  in  St.  Mathew's  Church.  These  cir- 
cumstances rendered  him  particularly  acceptable  to  Archbishop  Hughes,  and 
he  cordially  and  with  alacrity  added  his  influence  to  that  of  Howard  and  Chase 
to  secure  the  defeat  of  McLean. 

Thus  a  man  who  in  California  had  endeavored  to  establish  the  Democratic 
doctrine  of  Squatter  Sovereignty,  and  who  during  the  20  days  he  was  in  the  U. 
S.  Senate,  voted  always  with  the  south,  and  twice  against  amendments  of 
Messrs.  Seward  and  Hale  abolishing  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,*  is 

*  See  Sunate  Journal  of  Sept.  12th  ami  18th,  1850. 


put  forward  as  the  representative  of  north  slavery  sentiment  at  the  north. 
Why  was  ihis  done  and  the  chiefs  who  had  endured  all  the  toil  thrown  aside? 
Let  every  American,  every  anti-slavery  man  ponder  over  this.  Let  him  recall 
to  mind  what  Jesuitism  has  done  in  the  past,  and  see  here  hut  another  of  its 
deep  laid  schemes.  This  anti-slavery  agitation  is  a  mere  cloud,  under  which 
it  carries  on  its  deadly  designs  against  American  Protestantism.  Men's  preju- 
dices are  to  cement  an  unholy  union  between  Catholicism  and  anti-slavery. 


LOOK  UPON  JOHN  C.  FREMONT'S  RECORD. 

Let  us  take  up  the  question  of 

FREMONT'S  ROMANISM. 

That  John  C.  Fremont,  is  a  Roman  'Catholic,  no  fair-minded  man  can 
deny,  so  long  as  he  has  before  him 

The  Proof. 

1st.  His  father  was  a  Roman  Catholic  from  France. 

2d.  He  was  educated  at  a  Catholic  institution,  by  the  charity  of  Roman 
Catholic  ladies. 

3d.  He  was  married  by  a  Popish  priest  with  whom  marriage  is  a  sacrament, 
not  to  be  administered  to  heretics,  and  married  in  accordance  with  a  license 
procured  for  the  purpose,  in  which  the  name  of  the  Popish  priest  was  inserted 
at  his  own  request. 

4th.  His  adopted  daughter  was  educated  in  a  Catholic  school. 

These  statements  of  facts  we  do  not  stop  to  prove  because  Mr.  Fremont's 
friends  or  advocates  do  not  deny  them. 

5th.  It  was  well  understood  by  the  Catholics,  before  his  nomination,  that  he 
was  a  Catholic. 

The  Boston  Pilot,  a  Catholic  paper,  in  speaking  of  the  Bolting  Convention, 
of  the  12th  June,  in  New  York,  part  of  which  went  over  to  the  Republican 
Convention  which  at  the  time  of  the  split  was  in  session  in  Philadelphia  says: 

"If  Fremont  is  nominated,  we  shall  see  the  strange  sight  of  this  anti-Cath- 
olic, durk  lantern,  oath  bound  party  nominating  a  Catholic  and  the  son  of  a 
foreigner  for  the  highest  office  in  the  gift  of  the  people  !  For  a  Catholic  to 
be  put  into  the  Presidential  chair  by  the  party  whose  only  creed  is  hatred  and 
persecution  of  Catholicity,  will  be  in  the  world's  history,  like  England's  restor- 
ing Pope  Pius  VII  to  Rome,  a  proof  that  governments  and  parties  are  unwill- 
ing instruments  in  God's  hands  to  use  as  he  will." 

6th.  When  in  St.  Louis  he  attended  the  Popish  church,  regularly  as  one  of  its 
members.  A  Catholic  lady,  member  of  the  same  church  with  him  in  St. 
Louis,  now  living  at  Sandy  Hill,  in  N.  Y.  state,  makes  this  statement,  whose 
name  Mr.  Baker  of  the  Sandy  Hill  Herald,  will  give  to  any  one  who  wishes  to 
test  the  truth  of  this  assertion. 


7th.  He  goes  to  a  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Washington,  crosses  himself  with 
so-called  holy  water  at  the  door,  and  makes  the  sign  of  the  cross  when  he  goes  into 
his  pew. 

In  proof  of  this  Alderman  Fulmer  of  New  York,  a  gentleman  of  undoubted 
veracity,  has  published  the  following  statement : 

1st.  That  in  1852,  he  (Alderman  Fulmer)  and  Col.  Fremont  were  in  Brown's 
Hotel,  Washington  city,  together,  and  that  then  and  there,  he  (Fulmer)  first  saw 
Fremont,  and  saw  him  then  and  there,  daily  and  repeatedly,  so  that  there  could 
be  no  mistake  as  to  identity. 

2d.  That  he  (Fulmer)  being  told  that  he  (Fremont)  was  a  Roman  Catholic, 
doubted  il  for  reasons  not  here  necessary  to  name,  and  doubted  it  so  earnestly, 
that  it  was  affirmed  and  re-affirmed,  whereupon  he,  himself,  upon  being  in- 
formed proof  of  it  existed  in  Col.  Fremont's  worshipping  on  the  Sabbath  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Cathedral,  or  church,  went  to  that  church  to  see  and 
satisfy  himself  of  the  fact.  He  there  saw  Col.  Fremont  enter  the  church,  and 
by  or  near  the  door,  cross  himself  with  so-called  holy  water  as  he  entered,  and  he 
(Fremont)  then  passed  up  the  center  aisle  of  that  church,  to  a  slip  or  pew  not 
far  from  the  altar,  or  place  where  the  priests  were,  when  he  (Fremont)  again 
crossed  himself,  and  took  his  place. 

3d.  That  he  (Fulmer)  witnessed  for  some  time  the  rites  and  ceremonies  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  which  Fremont  was  then  worshipping,  arid  that 
he  (Fulmer)  stayed  there  till  the  boys  with  the  censers  (so  called)  sprinkled 
incense  (so  called),  whereupon  he  (FulmerJ  left. 

4th.  That,  on  the  same  Sabbath,  he  dined  at  the  same  public  table  with  Col. 
Fremont,  in  Brown's  Hotel,  at  a  sort  of  oval  table,  at  which  he  was  distant  from 
him  (Fremont)  only  some  five  or  six  persons,  and  then  and  there  Col.  Fre- 
mont, addressing  those  five  or  six  persons  unknown  to  him  (Fulmer)  between 
him  (Fulmer),  and  Fremont  dwelt  upon  the  august  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
church  he  had  been  that  day  attending,  as  if  with  a  view  to  impress  them  there- 
with, and  in  so  public  manner,  that  he  (Fulmer)  felt  it  proper  to  ask  him  (Fre- 
mont) if  he  (Fremont)  believed  in  TRANSUBSTANTIATION? 

Whereupon  he  (Fremont)  asked,  "What  I  (Fulmer)  understood  by  TRAN- 
SUBSTANTIATION ?"  when  the  conversation  continued  substantially  as  follows : 

FULMER — I  understand  it  to  be  the  belief,  that  the  wafer  which  the  Roman 
Catholics  use  in  the  sacrament,  is  substantially  converted  by  the  priests  into  the  body 
oj  Jesus  Christ.  Do  YOU  BELIEVE  THAT? 

FREMONT — I  do. 

FULMER — Did  Christ  ever  have  more  than  one  body  ? 

FREMONT — No.     He  had  but  one  body. 

FULMER — Do  you  believe  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  crucified  and  vras  laid  in 
the  sepulchre  of  Joseph's  tomb? 

FREMONT — I  believe  it  was. 

FULMER — Do  you  believe  that  body  after  the  resurrection  was  the  body  he 
ascended  to  heaven  with  ? 

FREMONT — I  believe  it  was. 

FULMER — Then  what  kind  of  a  machine,  hook,  or  knife,  or  pressure,  does  a 
bishop  or  priest  make  use  of  to  obtain  the  body  of  Christ  to  convert  into  wa- 
fers at  pleasure  for  the  whole  world  ? 

Fremont,  excited  and  appearing  angry,  made  no  reply,  and  in  seeming  in- 
dignation left  the  table. 

Now,  here  are  the  points  to  take  issue  upon,  and  "  by  authority"  we  affirm 
this  conversation  and  this  scene  to  be  true.  As  the  Times  has  spoken  "  by 
authority"  of  Fremont  through  the  editor,  we  await  the  reply  of  Fremont  him- 
self, when,  if  denied,  we  will  substantiate  these  facts  by  oath  or  affidavit,  and 
*hus  add  to  them  that  sanctity. 


5 

8th.  When  offered  a  Protestant  book  by  a  friend  he  refused  to  read  it,  on  the 
ground  of  his  being  a  Papist.  t 

Prof.  Wier  of  West  Point,  the  person  referred  to,  one  of  the  most  gifted 
and  purest  men  of  New  York  state,  whose  testimony  no  respectable  man  or 
paper,  however  friendly  to  Fremont  dare  question,  has  written  two  letters, 
the  most  guarded  of  which  we  give  below.  Mr.  Gray  a  rabid  Fremont  man 
and  who  became  greatly  agitated  in  talking  to  Mr.  Wier  on  the  subject  of 
Fremont's  Catholicism,  afterwards  addressed  him  a  note  to  which  Prof. 

Wier  replied. 

WEST  POINT,  Aug.  27,  1856. 

JOHN  A.  C.  GRAY,  Esq.  Dear  Sir  :  I  have  just  received  your  notice  of 
the  25th  instant,  in  which  you  request  a  correct  statement  of  the  incident 
alluded  to  in  an  article  that,  appeared  recently  in  the  Troy  Whig,  and  which  I 
may  add,  was  a  publication  of  private  remarks,  made  without  my  knowledge 
or  consent. 

The  circumstance  on  which  I  presume  the  article  was  based,  and  which  I 
stated  to  you  in  the  cars  was,  that  previous  to  Lieutenant  Fremont's  first  visit 
to  the  Rocky  Mountains,  he  came  to  West  Point,  and  was  introduced  to  rne 
by  a  mutual  friend,  Lieut.  Scammon.  I  was  much  interested  in  Lieutenant 
Fremont's  youthful  appearance,  in  connection  with  the  arduous  journey  he 
was  about  prosecuting  beyond  the  bounds  of  civilization,  and  offered  him, 
through  Lieutenant  S..  a  little  hook  that  had  been  recently  published  by  the 
Episcopal  press,  but  whether  a  Prayer  Book,  or  a  Companion  for  the  Altar, 
I  can  not  now  s;xy,  for  it  was  some  twelve  or  fourteen  years  ago,  but  it  was 
courteously  returned,  with  the  intimation,  through  Mr.  Scammon,  that  Lieu- 
tenant Fremont  was  a  Romanist.  This  impression  has  always  remained  on 
my  mind,  and  led  me  to  make  the  remark  that  1  presume  has  given  rise  to  the 
article  to  which  you  refer. 

*  As  I  should  be  very  sorry  to  do  an  injury  to  any  man,  and  as  you  think  a 
correction  is  needed,  I  have  no  objection  to  your  making  what  use  you  please 
of  the  above.  Very  respectfully, 

Your  obed't  serv't, 

ROBERT  W.  WIER. 

Here  is  the  testimony  af  Mr.  Fremont's  own  confession  that  he  is  a  Roman- 
ist, not  a  mere  general  believer,  but  one  of  the  strictest  of  the  sect.  It  would 
not  have  been  a  great  stretch  of  liberality  on  his  part  to  hare  received  this  act 
of  courtesy  and  kindness  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  offered,  and  no  doubt 
it  required  an  effort  to  repel  it  as  he  did.  But  he  felt  bound  by  the  stern  con- 
victions of  duty  and  the  severe  requirements  of  his  religion,  to  refuse  even 
the  acceptance  of  a  heretical  book  although  he  should  never  open  it.  No  man 
can  say  that  Mr.  Scammon  might  have  been  mistaken.  There  could  be  no 
misunderstanding  in  a  matter  so  delicate  as  this.  There  stands  the  testimony 
unimpeached  and  every  just  and  honest  man  must  accept  it  or  overthrow  it. 
We  can  not  conceive  of  more  direct  and  conclusive  proof  than  this. 

9th.  Imitating- other  Roman  Catholic  explorers,  in  his  expedition  to  the  Rocky 
Mountains  1842,  he  made  on  Rock  Independence,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  a  thing 
that  no  Protestant  explorer  ever  did  or  ever  would  do.  See  his  own  words  in 
Congressional  Document  166,  of  1845. 

After  reaching  the  highest  point,  he  says:  "Here,  not  unmindful  of  the 
custom  of  early  travelers  and  explorers  in  our  country,  /  ENGRAVED  on  this 


6 


ROCK  of  ike  far  west  a  symbol  of  the  Christian  faith.     Among  the  thickly  in- 
bribed  u4nes,  I  made  on  the  hard  granite  the  impression  of  A  LARGE 


which  1  covered  with  a  Hack  preparation  of  India  rubber,  well  calculated  to  resist 
the  influence  of  wind  and  rain.  It  stands  amidst  the  names  of  many  who  have 
long  since  fonnd  their  way  to  the  grave,  and  for  whom  the  huge  rock  is  a  giant 
grave  •»  one.' 

It  is  not  necessary  to  stop  here  to  prove  what  every  intelligent  reader  al- 
ready knows,  taut  all  Roman  Catholic  explorers,  and  none  others,  take  posses- 
sion of  new  countries  with  the  cross  as  well  as  the  flag — and  if  with  either 
alone,  with  the  cioss.  Much  effort  has  been  made  to  show  that  this  proves 
nothing  in  favor  of  his  religion — it  being  a  mere  symbol  of  Christianity.  It  is 
a  sufficient  answer  to  thi?,  to  say  that  no  English  or  JJmerican  Protestant  explorer 
ever  took  possession  cf newly  discovered  lands  with  the  cross  before.  Where  true 
•American  pioneers  go  they  plant  the  stars  and  stripes. 

I0th.  Col.  Russell,  of  the  army,  who  slept  for  months  under  the  same  blanket 
with  Fremont,  declares  that  Fremont  made  to  him  no  secret  of  his  being  a 
Romanist,  and  that  of  the  fact  there  could  be  no  doubt. 

LETTER  FROM  HON.  NATHAN  SARGENT. 

WASHINGTON,  Aug.  2,  1856. 

A.  B.  ELY,  ESQ. — Dear  Sir:  I  have  your  note  of  the  28th  July,  inquiring 
where  Col.  William  Russell  of  Missouri  resides  or  may  be  addressed,  and 
asking  me  what  he  has  said,  or  will  say,  in  reference  to  Col.  Fremont's 
religious  opinions? 

Col.  Russell's  residence  is  at  Harrisonville,  Cass  co.,  Mo. ;  but  I  am  informed 
that  he  is  at  present  in  Baltimore  on  a  visit. 

Col.  Russell  is  a  man  who  will  say  what  he  has  said ;  and  he  has  said  to  me 
that  Col.  Fremont  was  a  Catholic  when  he  was  in  California.  I  spent  an  even- 
ing with  Col.  R.  at  Brown's  Hotel  two  or  three  weeks  ago,  and  knowing  that 
he  had  been  much  with  Col.  F.  in  California,  and  on  very  intimate  terms  with 
him,  I  asked  him  if  he  knew  anything  of  Col.  Fremont's  religious  views  at 
that  time?  He  replied  that  he  did;  that  he  was  with  him  a  great  deal,  and  in 
fact  might  say  that  he  had  slept  under  the  same  blanket  with  him  for  eight 
months.  I  then  asked  him  what  Col.  F.  was?  He  replied  a  Catholic.  I 
asked  him  if  he  was  sure  of  this?  "  Perfectly,"  he  said;  and  then  added, 
*'  Col.  Fremont  won't  deny  that  he  was  a  Catholic ;  everybody  there  so  understood  it, 
and  he  made  no  secret  of  it" 

Further  conversation  occurred  between  us  on  the  subject,  but  this  is  the 
sum  and  substance  of  it.  I  asked  him  if  I  might  refer  to  this  conversation 
and  use  his  name?  He  replied,  "certainly;  you  are  at  liberty  to  do  80."  But 
he  again  said,  "COL.  FREMONT  WILL  NOT  DENY  THAT  HE  WAS 
A  CATHOLIC. 

Col.  Russell,  you  may  not  be  aware,  was  Col.  Fremont's  principal  witness 
on  his  trial  before  the  court  marshal.  Should  Col.  Fremont  deny  over  his 


own  signature  that  he  was  a  Catholic  when  in  California,  I  presume  Col.  Rus- 
sell will  then  speak  for  himself. 

Col.  R.  is  an  old,  ardent  personal  friend  of  Henry  Clay,  with   whose  family 
his  own  is  connected,  his  daughter  having  married  Mr.  Clay's  grandson. 
I  am,  very  truly,  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  SARGENT. 

This  has  been  published  for  a  long  time,  and  if  untrue,  why  have  we  not 
had  Col.  Russell's  denial.  Mr.  Sargent  has  been  registrar  of  Pennsylvania,  a 
gentleman  of  the  highest  standing,  and  no  one  has  yet  presumed  to  question 
his  veracity. 

llth.  He  was  married  by  a  Popish  priest  with  whom  marriage  is  a  sacra- 
ment, not  to  be  administered  to  heretics,  and  married  in  accordance  with  a 
license  procured  for  the  purpose,  in  which  the  name  of  the  Popish  priest  was 
inserted  at  his  own  request. 

It  is  said  in  reply  to  this  that  he  could  get  no  license  and  hence  no  other 
clergyman  would  marry  him.  This  false  assertion  was  nailed  by  obtaining  the 
following  certificate  from  the  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  District  of 
Columbia: 

"  District  of  Columbia,  Washington  county,  to  wit: 

"  I,  John  A.  Smith,  Clerk  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  for 
the  county  of  Washington,  do  hereby  certify,  that  on  the  19th  of  October,  1841, 
a  license  issued  to  unite  in  holy  matrimony,  John  Charles  Fremont  and  Jessie 
Ann  Benton,  as  is  manifest  of  record. 

"In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my  name,  and  affixed 
the  seal  of  said  court,  this  21st  day  of  July,  1856. 

[SEAL.]  «  JOHN  A.  SMITH,  Clerk." 

Certificates  of  the  baptism  of  Mr.  Fremont's  children  by  Rev.  Mr.  French, 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  have  been  published  to  prove  that  the  former  was 
an  Episcopalian.  In  reply  to  this  Mr.  French  has  written  a  private  letter  in 
whi  -h  he  states  that,  except  that  one  occasion,  he  never  saw  Mr.  Fremont  in 
his  church — that  he  always  supposed  he  was  a  Roman  Catholic  and  on  that 
account  never  spoke  with  hirn  on  the  subject  of  religion 

This  settles  at  once  that  he  was  not  an  Episcopalian,  and  goes  far  to  prove 
that  he  was  a  Romanist,  for  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  Mr.  French  would  be 
mistaken  about  the  religion  of  a  man  whose  children  he  was  baptizing.  If 
any  one  doubts  the  genuineness  of  this  letter,  he  can  be  satisfied  by  calling  on 
the  editor  of  the  Albany  Statesman,  who  will  show  it  to  him  with  proof  of  its 
authenticity,  or  by  writing  to  Mr.  French  himself.  No  honest  man  can  persist 
in  his  denial  of  this  fact,  when  the  means  of  proving  or  disproving  it  are  thus 
placed  within  his  reach  and  he  will  not  avail  himself  of  them. 

12th.  Again  it  was  stated  in  the  Albany  Statesman  that  Father  Olivetti,  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  priest  had  declared  in  public  that  Mr.  Fremont  he  knew  to  be  a 
Catholic,  and  on  that  account  should  vote  for  him  and  also  induce  the  Catho- 
lics of  that  whole  region  to  do  the  same.  The  Republicans  afraid  of  the  effect 
of  this  avowal  persuaded  Father  Olivetti  to  play  the  Jesuit  and  deny  in  a  pub- 
lished Utter  over  his  own  signature  that  he  had  ever  made  any  such  statement.  This, 
like  every  other  attempt  to  crush  the  truth,  ended  only  in  making  it  more  appa- 
rent. Gentlemen  who  heard  the  statement,  indignant  at  the  unblushing  false- 
hood, catne  forward  with  the  following  statement  and  affidavit: 


8 

STATEMENT  OF  C.  D.  CULVER,  ESQ. 

SANDY  HILL,  Sept.  2, 1856. 
Editor  of  the  Albany  Statesman : 

DEAR  SIR:  My  relation  with  Rev.  Mr.  Olivetti,  having  always  been  of  the 
most  friendly  character  personally,  and  being  averse  to  newspaper  contro- 
versies, or  heated  political  discussions,  I  have  endeavored  to  avoid  any  in  this 
case. 

Having,  however,  been  shown  an  affidavit  in  which  my  name  is  mentioned 
in  connection  with  a  statement  made  by  Mr.  Olivetti  (at  Fort  Edward  on  the 
23d  of  August  last),  and  which  affidavit  I  understand  is  to  be  made  public,  I 
deem  it  entirely  proper  to  state,  that  I  was  present  on  the  occasion  alluded  to, 
and  can  only  repeat  here,  what  I  have  said  before,  when  questioned  in  regard 
to  the  matter;  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Olivetti  did  say  without  reserve,  that  Mr.  Fre- 
mont was  a  Catholic,  and  that  he  should  vote  for  him  this  fall.  A  gentleman 
who  was  with  him,  and  who  also  appeared  to  be  a  Catholic  priest,  said  to  Mr. 
Olivetti,  "  You  have  never  voted."  "  I  know  it,  but  I  shall  vote  for  Mr.  Fremont 
this  fall,"  was  Mr.  Olivetti's  answer. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

C.  D.  CULVER, 

C.  D.  Culver,  Esq.,  is  known  to  every  one  of  our  readers  in  this  locality,  and 
to  nearly  every  one  in  this  state.  But  for  the  benefit  of  those  in  other  states, 
we  would  state  that  he  is  an  eminent  lawyer,  a  gentleman  of  unblemished 
character  and  high  moral  worth,  a  man  of  property,  and  an  excellent  and  popu- 
lar citizen.  Now  read  the  following 

AFFIDAVIT  OF  CHARLES  B.  GUY. 

Washington  county,  ss:  Charles  B.  Guy,  of  Kingsbury,  in  said  county, 
being  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says,  that  he  is  well  acquainted  with  Father 
Olivetti,  a  Catholic  Priest,  residing  in  Whitehall,  in  the  county  of  Washington. 
That  on  the  23d  day  of  August  last,  this  deponent  was  with  said  Olivetti,  James 
R.  Gandall,  C.  D.  Culver,  and  several  other  persons  (one  of  whom  was  under- 
stood to  be  a  Catholic  priest,  and  was  in  company  with  said  Olivetti),  at  the 
Fort  Edward  Railroad  House  kept  by  Joshua  fcldridge,  conversing  on  the  sub- 
ject of  politics.  That  during  that  conversation  the  question  was  distinctly 
asked  of  said  Olivetti,  if  the  statement  published  in  the  newspapers  asserting 
that  he,  Olivetti,  had  publicly  said  at  Whitehall  that  Colonel  Fremont  was  a 
Catholic,  and  he  knew  it  and  should  vote  for  him,  was  true? 

To  this  Olivetti  replied,  that  he  had  said  so  at  Whitehall,  and  had  also  said 
so  in  the  cars  last  evening,  and  he  should  not  deny  it. 

And  at  this  deponent  further  says,  that  on  the  same  day  the  said  Olivetti,  in 
Fort  Edward,  said  he  should  vote  for  Col.  Fremont,  and  his  friends  would  vote 
for  him,  and  added  these  words,  <k  and  we  shall  have  him  for  oar  next  presi- 
dent." 

He  also  stated  in  substance  that  he  had  five  hundred  Catholic  friends  in  Es- 
sex county  whom  he  was  going  to  see  next  week,  relative  to  the  presidential 
question.  This  deponent  says  there  was  much  farther  conversation  on  the 
same  subject.  CHARLES  B.  GUV. 

'  Subscribed  and  sworn  to,  before  me,  this  2d  day  of  September,  1856. 

L.  H.  NORTHRUP,  Justice  of  the  Peace. 

AFFIDAVIT  OF  J.  R.  GANDAL. 

County  of  Washington,  ss:  James  R.  Gandal  being  duly  sworn,  says,  that 
he  is  a  resident  of  Fort  Edward  in  said  county,  and  is  personally  acquainted 
with  Rev.  Michael  Olivetti,  of  Whitehall;  that  on  the  23d  day  of  August  last, 
he  was  present  at  the  Railroad  House,  in  the  village  of  Fort  Edward,  in  com- 
pany with  the  said  Olivetti,  Charles  Guy,  William  W.  Cronkhite,  Charles  D 
Culver  and  others,  when  the  following  conversation  was  had. 


9 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Cronkhite  asked  Mr.  Olivetti  if  he  had  published  in  a 
Whitehall  paper  that  John  C.  Fremont  was  a  Catholic,  to  which  Mr.  Olivetti 
replied  he  had  not.  Mr.  Cronkhite  then  said,  "  I  thought  I  would  ask  you  if 
you  had  snid  that  John  C.  Fremont  was  a  Catholic,  knowing  it  you  had  said  so, 
you  would  say  so  again,"  to  which  a  person  present,  a  stranger  to  this  deponent 
(but  said  to  be  a  Catholic  clergyman,  and  who  was  i»  company  with  Mr.  Oli- 
vetti), immediately  said — "  No,  you  deny  it."  Mr.  Olivetti  then  said,  "  I  have 
said  it  publicly  in  the  street,  and  said  so  in  the  cars  last  night,  and  shall  not 
deny  it,  but  I  did  not  authorize  any  publication  of  it,"  and  added  "  1  shall  vote 
for  him,  and  have  my  congregation  vote  for  him,  and  we  shall  have  him  for 
our  next  president." 

This  deponent  has  a  distinct  recollection  of  the  conversation  above  set  forth 
and  the  same  is  true.  J.  R.  GANDAL. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  this  2d  day  of  September,  1856. 

A.  D.  WAIT,  County  Judge  of  Washington  County. 

Both  Mr.  Guy  and  Mr.  Gandal  are  well  known  citizens,  men  of  high  charac- 
ter and  undoubted  integrity,  and  their  bare  word  would  be  taken  by  their 
neighbors  before  the  oath  of  any  Romish  priest  that  ever  drove  a  herd  of 
Catholic  Irishmen  to  the  polls. 

13th.  Right  on  the  top  of  this  astounding  development  carne  the  follow- 
ing 

TESTIMONY  OF  AN  OLD  COMPANION-IN-ARMS. 

The  following  letter  speaks  for  itself,  and  adds  proof  on  a  point  where  fur- 
ther proof  would  seem  to  be  useless.  The  writer,  Mr.  Busey,  is  a  gentleman 
of  respectability  and  standing  in  Washington,  and  the  statement  he  makes,  is 
worthy  of  all  credit. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  Sept.  5,  1856. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  just  returned  from  a  visit  to  Senator  Clayton,  where  I 
met  Judge  Nathan  Sargent,  Thomas  P.  Trot  (at  present  at  the  head  of  the 
depredation  bureau  of  the  General  Post  Office  Department),  and  Capt. 
Edward  Barry,  formerly  a  captain  in  the  army.  We  were  conversing  about 
political  matters,  and  the  subject  of  Fremont's  Catholicism  having  been  inci- 
dentally mentioned,  Captain  Barry  remarked  that  he  was  surprised  that  any 
one  doubted  it,  and  stated  that  he  knew  Fremont  to  be  a  Catholic.  Judge  Sar- 
gent immediately  enquired  of  him  how  he  knew  it  ?  Captain  Barry  replied, 
that  he  had  seen  him  at  Father  Van  HorseifrKs  church;  that  when  Col.  Fre- 
mont resided  in  this  city,  a  short  time  previous  to  his  marriage  to  Miss  Ben- 
ton  by  Father  Van  Horseigh,  he  (Fremont)  was  in  the  habit  of  visiting  at  the 
house  of  a  Mr.  McCormick,  now  deceased;  at  which  Barry  met  him — and 
that  he  KNEW  the  fact,  of  his  own  knowledge,  that  "  Fremont  was  a  regular 
attendant  at  Father  Van  Horseigh's  Church,  and  a  Roman  Catholic/' 

This  conversation  took  place  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Trot,  Mr.  Clayton, 
Judge  Sargent,  and  will  be  verified  by  either  or  all  of  these  gentlemen  ;  and  if 
you  desire  their  corroboration  of  the  above,  you  can  obtain  it  by  addressing 
them.  They  are  all  in  this  city — Capt.  Barry,  Mr.  Trot  and  Judge  Sargent 
residing  here. 

Capt.  Barry  is  well  known  in  this  community  as  a  man  of  character  and 
truth.  He  is  not  an  American  in  politics,  and  hence  can  not  be  suspected  of 
making  this  statement  with  any  view  to  advance  Mr.  Fill more's  prospects. 
Nor  did  he  do  so  with  any  intention  that  his  statement  should  be  communi- 
cated; but,  it  being  important  to  show  that  the  statements,  or  rather  the  con- 
tradictions of  the  Republican  press  are  unfounded,  and  that  Fremont  is  or 
was  a  Catholic,  I  have  deemed  it  my  duty  to  communicate  the  fact  to  you, 
and  also  give  the  names  of  those  who  were  present,  so  that  you  might,  if  you 
need  any  corroboration,  address  them.  Yours  truly, 

To  C.  D.  BRIGHAM.  S.  C.  BUSEF. 

Again  read  the  statement  of  Mr.  B.  F.  Cook,  made  at  Factoryville,  Rich- 


10 

mond  county,  as  reported  in  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  and  which  has  never 
been  denied  by  any  one  over  his  own  signature. 

"  Some  friends  having  desired  to  enlist  the  speaker  in  the  cause  of  so-called 
Republicanism,  he  expressed  a  desire  to  have  all  doubts  removed  on  this  mooted 
question,  but  said  that  nothing  short  of  an  assurance  from  Col.  Fremont's  own 
lips,  would  satisfy  him*  An  interview  was  arranged  for.  The  object  of  the 
visit  being  understood  by  the  colonel,  he  avowed  himself  ready  to  answer  any 
questions  proposed.  Mr.  Cook  proposed  the  following  and  received  to  each 
the  answer  annexed:  "  Were  you  married  by  a  Roman  Catholic  priest?"  / 
was?  the  colonel's  lip  quivered  as  he  spoke.  "  Did  you  at  the  time  believe  in, 
or  profess  to  believe  in  the  Roman  Catholic  religion?"  /  did  not."  "Have 
you  before  or  since,  or  at  any  time  professed  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  ?"  / 
have  not"  Here  Mr.  Cook  bowed,  to  signify  that  he  had  no  more  questions  to 
ask.  Col.  Fremont  then  volunteered  some  remarks  to  the  following  effect: — 
that  while  in  California  he  attended  no  church,  and  that  he  occupied  his  Sun- 
days in  reading  and  writing,  and  in  attending  to  such  matters  of  business  as  he 
thought  of  importance.  Mr.  Fremont  further  said — "  I  arn  frequently  interro- 
gated by  all  parties  on  this  subject.  I  presume  the  delegation  now  waiting  for 
me  up  stairs  wish  to  interrogate  me  on  this  point.  When  they  do,  I  shall  put 
the  most  favorable  construction  on  the  matter  thftt  I  can.  I  wish  to  offend 
none,  but  to  secure  the  votes  of  all.  Only  this  very  morning,  I  have  a  letter 
from  Maine,  saying  that  unless  I  make  a  personal  denial  of  Romanism,  and 
that  I  am  or  have  been  a  Roman  Catholic,  that  state  will  be  lost  to  the  Repub- 
licans; and  another  letter  from  Indiana,  telling  me  that  if  I  will  authorize  my 
friends  there  to  say  I  am  a  Roman  Catholic,  they  can  secure  for  me  a  large 
German  and  Irish  vote.  I  have  to  frame  my  replies  so  as  to  secure  the  votes 
of  all.  There  is  now  a  deputation  waiting-  for  me,  whose  errand  I  doubt  not  is 
the  same.  It  is  best  to  say  as  littJe  about  this  matter  as  possible,  and  we  must 
manage  the  thing  as  well  as  we  can,  so  as  to  get  the  votes  of  both  sides."  Here 
the  interview  terminated.  Mr.  Cook's  statement  was  listened  to  with  .pro- 
found interest." 

State  of  New  York,  City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss: 

Benjamin  F.  Cook,  of  said  city,  being  duly  sworn,  says  the  foregoing  state- 
ment of  a  conversation  which  took  place  at  the  residence  of  Hon.  John  C.  Fre- 
mont, No.  56  Ninth  street,  in  said  city,  about  three  weeks  ago,  between  said 
John  C.  Fremont,  J.  L.  Moffatt,  Nathan  Comstock,  Jr.,  R.  W.  Potter,  Isaac 
Sherman,  and  myself,  is  full  and  correct  to  the  best  of  rny  knowledge  and  be- 
lief. Signed,  B.  F.  COOK. 

Sworn  to  before  me,  Sept.  15,  1856.  D.  B.TAYLOR,  Com'r  of  Deeds. 

Now  Fellow  Citizens  and  Americans,  we  have  not  brought  forward  'this 
mass  of  eviderfte  to  convince  you  that  Mr.  Fremont  is  a  Catholic,  because^ 
we  have  other  testimony,  that  of  itself  alone  puts  it  beyond  a  question.  We 
present  it  to  show  how  step  by  step  the  American  party  has  labored  to  estab- 
lish a  truth  that  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher,  the  Tribune,  Times  and  Evening 
Journal,  were  all  the  time  aware  of,  but  have  determined  the  people  should 
not  know.  They  hoped  to  keep  the  people  in  doubt  until  after  election  and 
then  smile  at  their  credulity.  When  Archbishop  Hughes,  saw  how  much 
stronger  party  ambition  was  than  Protestantism  among  Protestant  clergymen 
and  the  leading  papers  of  the  state,  and  that  a  Popish  president  and  the  son 
of  a  foreigner,  was  just  as  good  for  them  as  a  Protestant,  he  determined  to 
throw  off  the  mask  and  appeal  to  the  Catholic  vote  of  the  country  in  a  mass 
and  at  the  same  time  show  his  utter  scorn  of  those  false  hearted  men  who 
sought  to  obtain  the  Catholic  vote  by  selecting  a  Catholic  candidate  and  at  the 
same  time  feet  the  Protestant  vote  by  asserting  that  he  was  a  Protestant.  If 
any  thing  can  awaken  in  the  heart  of  the  honest  masses  an  utter  scorn  and 
detestation  of  the  Republican  press  and  its  unscrupulous  editors  the  following 
editorial  in  the  Freeman's  Journal,  Archbishop  Hughee's  paper  of  the  13th 
September,  will  do  it.  We  take  the  liberty  of  dividing  it  into  heads  and 
underscoring  it. 


11 
THE    FACT   SETTLED. 

Archbishop  Hughes's  Contempt  of  Bolting  Americans. 
"  RELIGION  AS  A  POLITICAL  TEST. — Were  it  not  disgusting  it  would  amuse 
ITS  to  see  the  savageness  of  the  contest  that  has  been  waging  for  months  be- 
tween the  two  Know  Nothing  parties  on  the  subject  of  the  religion  of  the  can- 
didates of  one  of  them.  It  was  certainly  of  the  nature  of  a  farce  that  an  out- 
and-out  Know  Nothing  faction  should  have  selected  for  their  presidential 
candidate,  not  only  the  son  of  a  foreigner,  but  one  who,  until  recently,  was 
looked  upon  by  his  friends  and  associates  as  a  Catholic.  The  party  known  as 
Choctaws,  North  Americans,  or  anti-Slavery  Know  Nothings,  offered  Mr. 
Fremont  their  nomination,  and  he  formally  accepted  it,  having  avowed  his 
sympathy  with  most  of  their  principles,  and  his  purpose  to  carry  them  out  if 
he  could  be  elected.  According  to  the  New  York  Tiiries,  a  Fremont  paper, 
this  convention  which  thus  nominated  Mr.  Fremont,  was  composed  of  those 
"who  bolted  for  the  American  (K.  N.j  National  Council  and  nominating  con- 
vention in  Philadelphia,  by  reason  of  the  admission  therein  of.  <<eiegates  re- 
presenting a  Roman  Catholic  constituency, — thus  taking  the  most  decided  posi- 
tion as  anti-Roman  Catholics,  and  still  maintaining  that  position."  Yet,  as  if 
to  illustrate  how  utterly  profligate  in  principle  Know  Nothingisrn  is,  and  how 
necessarily  self  stultifying,  they  take  as  their  candidate  a  man  supposed  to  be 
a  Catholic." 

:.'•    •»-'    -  •!•         •';,.,:..'  ''    -'.\j[     '/IS     .  " '"  ."-i  ?:.' ;K.''t    i.         "  •  .  •  I .  i  5      ;    vj    .  ''?'':'    •»*>    :  •!    •.'• 

Declares  Fremont  a  Romanist,  and  Charges  on  Weed,  Greeley,  Ray- 
mond, Beecher  &  Co.,  an  Attempt  to  Deceive  the  People. 

u  Having  selected  such  an  one  for  their  candidate,  the  next  curious  step  is 
the  attempt  to  make  out, — not  that  Fremont  had  given  up  being  a  Catholic, — 
not  that  he  was  now  a  Protestant,  or  of  no  religion, — a  thing  possible  in  itself, 
plausible  moreover,  and  which  he  certainly  has  the  political  right  to  do  without 
being  politically  questioned  about  it, — but  that  he  never  had  been  a  Catholic, 
never  had  so  professed  himself.  This  is,  we  think,  the  most  audacious  attempt  on 
the  credulity  of  the  American  people  that  has  ever  been  tried.  Had  the  appeal  been 
made  to  the  real  American  principle  that  a  man's  religion  is  riot  a  matter  on 
which  he  ought  to  submit  to  questioning — however  contradictory  this  might 
be  to  the  inquisitorial  dicta  of  the  Know  Nothings,— their  inconsistency  would 
have  found  some  to  pardon  it.  'BUT  THE  ATTEMPT  TO  MAKE  THE 
PUBLIC  SWALLOW  SO  ABSURD  A  STORY  AS  THAT  MK.  FREMONT 
DID  NOT  FOR  YEARS  PROFESS  HIMSELF  A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC,— 
AND  NOTHING  BUT  A  ROMAN  CATHOLIC— HAS  ACTUALLY 
SOMETHING  IN  IT  HARDLY  ONE  STEP  FROM  THE  SUBLIME." 

Compliments  the  Catholics,  who  could  at  any  time  have  Nailed  the  False- 
hood on  Beecher,  (Jpeeley  &  Co.,  for  withholding  their  Testimony. 

"There  is  a  relieving  feature  in  this  unpleasant  business.  It  is  that  While 
there  are  scores  of  men  who,  hy  personal  intercourse  with  Mr.  Fremont  in  other 
days,  are  in  a  condition  to  give  the  most  conclusive  testimony, — and  many  of  these 
are  hostile  to  Mr.  Fremont  politically, — not  one  of  them  of  any  character  has 
beenjound  to  violate  the  rights  of  private  intercourse,  or  the  political  privilege  oj  re- 
ligious liberty,  so  much  as  to  be  induced  to  publish  a  work  on  the  subject.  The 
unseemly  contest  has  been  left  to  the  two  Know  Nothing  factions  to  dispute 
between  thf-rnselves.  The  one  set  averring — what  Mr.  Fremont  does  not, 
with  his  own  word,  aver, — that  he  has  never  professed  himself  a  Roman  Catho- 
lic,— the  other  set  asserting  that  he  has  not  ceased  to  be  a  Catholic,  but  is  playing 
some  dark  and  mysterious  part  for  the  accomplishment  of  Catholic  designs  on 
the  country.  The  two  sets  are  well  matched.  It  would  be  a  pity  to  interfere 
with  them." 


12 

Rebukes  Greeley  for  Accusing1  Father  Van  Horseigh  of  Violating  his 
Oath  in  Marrying  two  Heretics. 

"But  we  must  insist  on  their  letting  alone  the  good  name  of  the  Catholic 
priesthood.  It  will  not  do  for  the  friends  of  Mr.  Fremont  to  malign  falsely  the 
.  character  of  the  good  old  Jesuit,  Father  Van  Horseigh,  who  married  him.  Respect 
for  the  memory  of  a  good  priest,  now  deceased,  will  one  day,  compel  the  overhauling 
of  the  coarse  charges  of  the  Tribune,  that  he  had  no  regard  to  the  requirements  of 
his  sacred  office.  The  same  kind  of  gross  impropriety  has  been  practiced  with 
a  Catholic  priest  still  living.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Olivetti,  of  Whitehall,  in  the  dio- 
cese of  Albany,  has  been  trumpeted  through  the  country  as  having  declared 
that  he  knew  Mr.  Fremont  to  be  a  Catholic,  and  that  he  meant  to  vote  for  him 
on  that  account,  and  that  he  had  five  hundred  men  in  Essex  county  whom  he 
would  make  vote  for  him  also.  Mr.  Olivetti  has  felt  it  proper  to  give  a  formal 
denial  to  this  tissue  of  absurdities  in  a  local  paper  of  Whitehall.  He  says  that 
he  knows  nothing  about  Mr.  Fremont's  religion — how  should  he? — that  he 
has  not  had  time  to  learn  the  merits  of  the  political  parties  in  this  country,  and 
does  not  intend  to  vote  at  all, — having  enough  to  do  with  the  discharge  of  his 
clerical  duties.  As  to  the  retinue  of  five  hundred  men  that  were  waiting  for 
his  word  to  vote,  it  is  hard  to  think  that  such  stories  can  be  believed  by  any 
one.  Catholics  understand  perfectly  well  their  rights,  and  their  individual  re- 
sponsibilities as  citizens,  and  do  not  exercise  their  citizens'  privilege  at  the  dic- 
tation of  any  man.  But  the  Catholic's  conscience  in  such  matters,  its  liberty 
and  its  dignity,  is  a  thing  not  understood  by  Know  Nothings  who  bind  them- 
selves to  do  blindly  the  bidding  of  the  knights  that  carry  the  dark  lantern  for 
their  party." 

Regards  with  Equal  Contempt  and  Scorn,  the  Know  Nothings  that  Sup- 
port Mr.  Fremont,  and  those  who  Oppose  Him. 

"  Meanwhile,  as  the  Know  Nothing  faction  that  sustains  Mr.  Fremont  repels 
as  fatal  to  his  prospects  the  charge  of  his  having  for  years  been  known  as  a 
Catholic,  and  the  Know  Nothing  faction  that  opposes  him  maintains  that  he 
is  still  a  Catholic  at  heart,  and  only  a  Protestant  for  the  nonce,  till  after  elec- 
tion,— it  gratifies  us  to  witness  the  profound  disgust  with  which  a  vast  pro- 
portion of  the  community  view  this  indecent  discussion." 

The  Editor  of  the  Organ  of  Bishop  Hughes  on  the  Stand ! 

!  ,  The  following  Letter  from  the  Editor  of  N.  Y.  Freeman's  Journal,  the  Organ  of 
Bishop  Hughes,  comes  to  us  in  the  Columbus  (Ohio,)  Capital  City  Fact,  of  the  26th 
inst.  It  presents  directly  the  issue  of  John  C  Fremont's  Veracity,  and  suggests 
before  the  nation  the  question — Is  not  John  C.  Fremont  guilty  of  deliberate,  premed- 
itated falsehood  in  denying  his  religious  faith  ?  We  ask  men  who  would  not  coun- 
tenance a  deliberate  falsifier,  to  read  the  following,  which  among  honorable  men  will 
fall  with  crushing  effect  : 

OFFICE  OF  THE  N.  Y.  FREEMAN'S  JOURNAL,  Sept.  5th,  1856. 

SIR  : — No  such  article  as  you  refer  to  has  appeared  in  me  Freeman's  Journal — nor 
would  I  admit  it,  even  to  injure  the  prospects  of  the  candidate  of  so  bad  a  party  as 
the  Black  Republicans — because  the  religion  of  Mr.  Fremont,  if  he  has  any^left,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  his  claims  for  office,  or  should  have  nothing  to  do  with  them 
at  least. 

What  is  more  to  the  purpose,  is  the  personal  veracity  of  Mr.  Fremont.  If  you  can 
get  any  one  to  induce  him  to  say  over  his  own  signature,  what  he  seems  to  authorize 
his  friends  to  say  for  him  viz:  that,  he  has  never  professed  to  be  a  Catholic,  THEN 
I  WILL  BRAND  HIM  PUBLICLY  AS  A  LIAR,  as  I  know  the  whole  story  of  his 
life  in  Washington,  and  know  that  daily,  and  for  years,  he  professed  to  be  a  Catholic, 
and  nothing  but  a  Catholic.  That  he  professed  to  be  suck  when  he  was  married. 
That  he  avowed  himself  such  to  his  brother  officers  in  the  army,  and  to  men  in  civil 
life— to  Protestants  and  Catholics,  whom  I  know  and  could  cite  as  proofs.  But  J.  C. 
i  Fnmont  dare  not,  over  his  own  name,  deny  a  fact  that  lean  have  sworn  to  by  twenty 


13 

distinct  affidavits  of  highly  respectable  people,  men  and  women,  priests  and  lay,  Cath- 
olic and  Protestant,  viz  :  that  for  years  he  professed  himself  A  CATHOLIC,  AND 
DENIED  HAVING  ANY  OTHER  BELIEF  IN  ANY  OTHER  RELIGION. 

A  man  who  will  LIE  about  a  serious  fact  in  his  own  history,  ought  to  be  denounc- 
ed, if  he  pretends  to  run  for  President,  even  of  so  mean  a  coalition  as  Black  Repub- 
licans and  Choctaw  Know  Nothings.  If  CoL  Fremont  will  assert  that  he  has  never 
given  himself  out  as  a  Catholic,  I  WILL  CLAP  THE  HOT  IRON  ON  HIM 
QUICK  AND  SURE. 

*  *  *  *  *  #  an*  '.-.          #  * 

Yours,  4-c  ,  J.  A.  McMASTER. 

Editor  and  Proprietor  of  Freeman's  Journal. 

THE  BISHOP  OF  ST.  LOUIS  ON  THE  STAND! 

From  the  St.  Louis  Pilot  (Roman  Catholic),  Sept.  16. 

That  Fremont  professed  to  be  a  Catholic  and  conformed  to  all  the  practices  of 
that  church,  can  be  proved  here  by  the  most  incontrovertible  evidence.  The  follow- 
ing facts  were  related  to  us  yesterday  by  a  gentleman  of  this  city  who  is  perfectly 
cognizant  of  them,  and  was  well  acquainted  with  Fremont,  with  whom  he  was  in 
the  habit  of  daily  association. 

In  the  year  1838,  Fremont  spent  the  winter  in  St.  Louis.  He  was  at  that  time 
assistant  engineer  to  Mr.  Nicholas,  who  was  employed  by  the  government  to  make 
a  topographical  survey  of  Iowa  and  Minnesota.  St.  Louis  was  the  headquarters  of 
the  surveying  party  in  the  winter.  For  the  purpose  of  being  near  an  open  space 
from  which  he  could  take  observations,  Mr.  Nicholas  engaged  rooms  for  his  party  at 
an  hotel  in  Ferry's  Building,  adjoining  Chouteau's  Garden.  Among  the  party  was 
a  young  gentleman /rom  New  York  by  the  name  of  Flaudrien,  who  is  still  alive,  and 
can  testify  to  the  truth  of  these  facts.  Mr.  Nicholas  was  a  rigid  Catholic,  and  died 
subsequently  at  the  Jesuit  College  at  Georgetown,  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  He 
exacted  of  the  young  men  of  his  party,  who  professed  to  be  Catholics,  a  rigid  prac- 
tice of  the  duties  of  their  faith.  FREMONT  WENT  REGULARLY  TO  CON- 
FESSION, AND  TO  THE  COMMUNION.  A  CLERGYMAN  OF  THE  CA- 
THEDRAL OF  ST.  LOUIS  WAS  HIS  FATHER  CONFESSOR,  and  all  the 
Catholics  in  the  city  looked  upon  Fremont  as  in  full  communion  with  their  church. 

Our  informant  states  that  he  was  himself  present  at  the  table  when  the  following 
incident  occurred:  A  young  Englishman  who  was  traveling  through  the  country, 
made  some  remarks  of  the  most  offensive  nature  reflecting  upon  the  chastity  of 
Catholic  females.  He  was  immediately  taken  up  and  peremptorily  challenged  by 
Fremont,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  insulted  the  ladies  of  his  church.  No  duel, 
however,  took  place,  as  the  Englishman  though  it  best  to  leave  the  city  at  once. 

As  Fremont  at  this  time  of  his  life  had  no  object  to  be  gained  thereby,  he  made 
no  secret  of  his  being  a  Catholic,  He  was  married  by  a  Catholic  priest,  he  erected 
a  cross  on  the  summit  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  and  in  the  most  important  acts  of 
his  life  he  passed  himself  off  for  a  Catholic  Now  he  desires  to  conceal  the  fact;  he  al- 
lows his  Black  Republican  organs  at  the  North  to  deny  it;  he  permits  them  to  lie 
atrociously  for  him,  and  thereby  becomes  so  far  responsible.  Such  is  the  man  whom 
the  fanatics  of  New  England  seek  to  impose  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States  as 
President — one  false  to  his  religion  and  a  traitor  to  the  place  of  his  birth. 

From  the  St.  Louis  Leader  (organ  of  Bishop  Kendrick,)  of  September  16. 

It  would  be  affectation  in  us  to  keep  silence  in  regard  to  what  is  said  in  this  cjty 
on  this  question.  That  Fremont  professed  to  be  a  Catholic  when  in  St.  Louis,  ad- 
mits not  of  a  doubt.  We  understand  that  an  evening  cofemporary  will  publish  some 
important  facts  on  the  subject  this  evening.  We  have  certain  further  developments 
in  reserve,  and  are  only  waiting  for  the  permission  of  a  third  party  to  publish  them. 
To  be  a  Catholic  is  no  disqualification  for  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States. 
But  to  be  a  Catholic  and  at  the  same  time  the  candidate  of  the  Know  Nothings  for 
the  Presidency,  is  certainly  a  very  curious  combination.  To  be  of  ANY  religion,  and 
to  suppress,  or  deny  it,  for  fear  of  losing  votes,  is  despicable.  What  is  asserted  is 
this.  That  when  Fremont  was  here  as  a  young  engineer,  he  was  considered  a  Cath- 
olic by  his  immediate  employer,  and  the  latter  being  a  zealous  one  himself,  took  pains 
that  the  young  men  with  him  should  practice  their  religion.  A  gentleman  more- 
over, whose  name  can  be  produced,  recollects  an  anecdote  rather  favorable  to  Fre- 


14 

mont,  but  bearing  on  this  point.  At  table,  in  a  hotel,  an  Englishman  after  dinner, 
gentlemen  only  present  of  course,  uttered  a  most  insulting  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
chastity  of  Catholic  women — and  Fremont  sent  him  a  challenge,  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  insulted  the  members  of  his  church.  The  Englishman  vamosed  Another 
gentleman  vows  that  he  saw  Fremont  at  the  altar  rails  of  the  Cathedral,  but  whether 
he  received  communion  or  not,  can  not  be  positive. 

In  fact,  our  acquaintance  lies  among  gentlemen  who  know  him — mostly  Catholics 
themselves  (for  the  very  first  people  in  St.  Louis,  you  know,  are  Catholics, — and  it  it 
a  recommendation  in  best  society)  and  we  have  yet  to  meet  the  first  man  who  knew 
Fremont  here,  and  did  not  regard  him  as  a  Catholic.  We  possess,  however,  evidence 
of  a  far  more  delicate  and  recherche  nature,  and  if  we  are  permitted,  will  publish  it. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  at  present,  that  it  establishes  in  our  mind  the  conviction  that  when 
here,  among  Catholics,  and  in  Catholic  CREOLE  society,  this  thenvbscure  young  man 
passed  himself  off  as  a  Catholic,  professed  at  least  to  perform  devotions  peculiar  to 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  rejected  by  all  Protestants,  arid,jin  short,  was  either  a  Cath- 
olic or  a  hypocrite. 

Letter  from  a  Gentleman  in  California, 

The  following  lettei  is  from  a  man,  formerly  of  Charlestown.  in  this  State,  (Mr. 
Jesse  Morriil)  and  well  known  to  the  old  members  of  the  Order  of  United  Americans. 
He  was  for  many  years  in  the  employment  of  the  Fitchburg  Railroad  Company,  and 
was  respected  and  esteemed  by  all  who  knew  him.  We  know  him  personally,  and 
have  every  reason  to  put  implicit  confidence  in  what  he  says  : 

SACRAMENTO,  CAL.,  Aug.  19,  1856. 

J.  E.  FARWELL,  Esq. — Dear  Sir  :  I  see  by  some  of  the  Eastern  papers,  there  is 
some  doubt  about  the  religious  opinions  of  Col.  Fremont.  As  for  that,  I  think  I 
can  put  you  right. 

In  November,  1845,  learning  that  Col.  Fremont  was  in  attendance  at  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  arid  having  a  desire,  from  curiosity,  to  see  him,  I  followed.  I  saw 
hint  go  to  the  holy  water,  dip  his  finger  in,  and  cross  himself,  and  then  go  towards 
the  altar  and  get  down  on  his  knees.  During  service  I  SAW  HIM  CROSS  HIM- 
SELF SEVERAL  TIMES  !  !  I  have  since,  on  one  occasion,  SEEN  HIM  PAR- 
TAKE OF  THE  SACRAMENT  IN  THAT  CHURCH. 

*******^* 

I  am  yours  £c.,  J.  MORRILL. 

fbu;,         .  , H — , 


JOHN  C.  FREMONT'S  PRO-SLAVERY  PRINCIPLES. 

John  C.  Fremont  was  in  the  U.  S.  Senate  about  twenty  days.  During'  that 
time  he  voted  with  extreme  southern  slavery  propagandists.  His  course  was 
undeviating  and  his  action  always  in  accordance  with  extreme  southern 
policy. 

The  Proof. 

Qn  the  12th  of  September,  1850,  a  vote  was  taken  on  William  H.  Se  ward's 
bill  providing  that — u  Slavery  shall  forever  cease  within  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, and  all  persons  held  in  bondage  therein  shall  be  free." 

The  vote  on  this  proposition  and  substitute  was: 

AYES — CHASE  (now  Governor  of  Ohio);  DODGE  (of  Wisconsin,  Dern.);  HALE 
(now,  and  again  U.  S.  Senator);  SEWARD  (of  N.  Y.);  and  UPHAM,  (of  Vermont, 
now  dead.) 

NAYS. — Messrs.  Atchison,  Badger,  Baldwin,  Barnwell,  Bell,  Benton,  Berrien, 
Bright,  Butler,  Clay,  Davis  of  Mass.,  Davis  of  Miss..  DAYTON,  Dickinson, 
Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Downs,  E\ving,  Felch,  Fit E  VI ONT,  Green,  Gwin, 
Hamiin,  Houston,  Hunter,  Jones,  King,  Mangum,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris, 


15 

Pearce,  Pratt,  Rush,  Sebastian,  Shields,  Smith,  Soule,  Spruance,  Sturgeon, 
Turney,  Underwood,  Wales,  Whitcomb,  and  Winthrop — 45. 

See  Senate  Journal  of  1850,  p.  626. 

Fremont's  Second   Vote  was  given  for  Slavery. 

On  the  18th  September,  1850,  Mr.  Pratt,  having  moved  to  take  up  a  bill  to 
prevent  the  enticing  or  assisting  slaves  to  escape  from  their  owners  in  the  Dis- 
trict of  Columbia.  Mr.  Hale  moved  that  the  bill  be  committed  to  the  committee  on 
the  District  of  Columbia,  with  the  instructions  so  to  amend  it  as  to  abolish  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

He  is  recorded  as  voting  against  Mr.  Male's  motion,  as  follows: 

YEAS — Messrs.  Baldwin,  Chase,  Davis  of  Mass.,  Dodge  of  Wis.,  Ewing, 
Hale,  Hamlin,  Seward  and  Winthrop — 9. 

NAYS— Messrs.  Atchison,  Badger,  Barnwell,  Bell,  Benton,  Bright,  Butler, 
Cass,  Clay,  Cooper,  Davis  of  Miss.,  Dawson,  DAYTON,  Dickinson,  Dodge  of 
Iowa,  Douglas,  Downs,  Felch,  Foot,  FREMONT,  Gwin,  Houston,  Hunter, 
Jones,  King,  Mason,  Morton,  Norris,  Pratt,  Sebastian,  Shields,  Smith,  Soule, 
Spruauce,  Sturgeon,  Turner,  Underwood,  Wales,  Whiicomb  and  Yulee — 40. 

Fremont's  Third  Vote  was  given  for  Slavery. 

Mr.  Underwood,  of  Kentucky,  having  called  up  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the 
American  Colonization  Society,  which  sought  to  repay  the  society  the  ex- 
penses for  maintaining  and  sending  to  Liberia  the  slaves  recaptured  on  the 
barque  Pons,  the  motion  was  to  ingross  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  and  how 
did  Freedom  Shrieking  Fremont  vote!  Look  upon  the  damning  record! 

The  question  was  discussed  at  length  as  to  whether  the  United  States  would 
pay  these  just  and  legal  demands;  and  on  the  vote  being  taken  for  the  en- 
grossment of  the  bill  to  a  third  reading,  Mr.  Fremont's  name  is  found  record- 
ed ill  the  negative — as  follows: 

YEAS— Messrs.  Badger,  Baldwin,  Bell,  Chase,  Clayton,  Davis  of  Mass., 
DAYTON,  Dodge  of  Wis.,  Dodge  of  Iowa,  Douglas,  Ewing,  Felch,  Greene, 
Hale,  Hamlin,  Jones,  Mangum,  Pearce,  Pratt,  Seward,  Shields,  Smith, 
Spruance,  Sturgeon,  Underwood,  Wales,  Walker,  Whitcomb  and  Winthrop 
—29. 

NATS— Messrs.  Atchison.  Barnwell,  Benton,  Buller,  Dawson,  Dickinson, 
Downs,  FREMONT,  Hunter,  King,  Mason,  Rusk,  Sebastian,  Soule,  Turner 
and  Yulee— 16. 

[See  Congressional  Globe,  vol.  21,  part  2,  page  1803.] 

We  wish  in  conclusion  to  show  by  a  recent  vote  in  Congress  how  honest 
these  men  are  who  condemn  Mr.  Fillrnore  for  signing  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill. 
It  is  well  known  that  that  law  applied  only  to  the  States.  The  following  is  the 
article  in  the  constitution  under  which  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  was  passed: 

"No  person  held  to  service  in  one  State  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping 
into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regulation  therein,  be  dis- 
charged from  such  snrvice  or  labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." — U.S.  Constitution,  Art.  IV, 
Sec.  2. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  provision  of  the  Conltitution  relates  only  to  a  slave 
escaping  into  a  State,  and  makes  no  requirement  respecting  fugitives  in  the 
territories.  When,  therefore,  a  fugitive  slave  law  is  extended  over  the  territo- 
riep,  it  is  not,  as  in  the  case  of  the  States,  because  the  Constitution  positively 
commands  it.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  read  the  extract  from  an  act  which  passed 
the  House  of  Representatives  on  the  29th  of  July,  1856,  by  a  vote  of  88  yeas 
to  74  nays ;  stbenty-six  of  the  eighty-eight  yeas  being  given  by  members  of  the 
Republican  party.  The  part  which  we  quote  is  known  as  Dunn's  amend- 
ment : 


16  /B52 

Provided,  however,  That  any  person  lawfully  held  to  service  in  said  Territories 
shall  not  be  discharged  from  such  service  by  such  repeal  and  revival  of  said  eighth  sec- 
tion, if  such  person  shall  be  perm  anently  removed  from  such  Territory  or  Territories 
prior  to  thejlrst  day  of  January,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-eight  ;  and  any  child  or 
children  born  in  either  of  said  Territories,  of  any  female  lawfully  held  to  service,  if 
in  like  manner  removed  without  said  Territories  before  the  expiration  of  that  datt, 
shall  not  be,  by  reason  of  anything  in  this  act  emancipated  from  any  service  it  might 
have  owed  had  this  act  never  been  passed: 

C^""  Jlnd  provided  further,  That  any  person  lawfully  held  to  service  in  any  other 
State  or  Territory  of  the  United  States,  and  escaping  into  either  the  Territory  of 
Kansas  or  Nebraska,  may  be  reclaimed  and  removed  to  the  person  or  place  where  such 
service  is  due,  under  any  law  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be  in  force  upon  the 
subject.  «£H 

It  is  only  necessary  to  subjoin  the  names  of  the  Republican  members  of  the 
House,  by  whose  votes  this  was  passed,  and  the  nail  is  driven  and  clinched.  Here 
they  are  : 


Charles  J.  Albright,  Ohio-,  John  Allison,  Penn  ;  Lucian  Barbour,  Ind.;  Samuel 
P.  Benson,  Me.;  Philemon  Biiss,  Ohio;  Samuel  C.  Bradshaw,  Penn.;  Samuel 
Brenton,  Ind.;  James  Buffinton,  Mass  ;  James  H.  Campbell,  Penn.;  Lewis  D. 
Campbell,  Ohio;  Calvin  C.  Schaffee,  Mass.;  Schuyler  Colfax,  Ind.;  Linus  B. 
Comins,  Mass.;  John  Covode,  Penn.;  William  Cumback,  Ind.;  William  S.  Dainrell, 
Mass.;  Sidney  Dean,  Conn.;  John  Dick,  Penn.;  Edward  Dodd,  N.  Y.;  Nathaniel 
B.  Durfee,  R.  I.;  John  R.  Eddie,  Penn.;  J.  Reace  Emrie,  Ohio;  Thomas  T.  Flag- 
ler,  N.  Y.;  Joshua  R.  Giddings,  Ohio;  William  A.  Gilbert,  N.  Y.;  Amos  P.  Gran- 
ger, N.  Y.;  Galusha  A.  Grow.  Penn.;  Robert  B.  Hall,  Mass.;  Aaron  Harlon,  Ohio; 
David  P.  Holloway,  Ind.;  Thomas  R.  Horton,  N.  Y.;  Valentine  B.  Horton,  Ohio; 
Jonas  A.  Hughston,  N.  Y.;  William  H.  Kelsey,  N.  Y.;  Rufus  H.  King,  N.  Y.; 
Chauncey  L.  Knapp,  Mass.;  Ebenezer  Knowlton,  Me.;  James  Knox,  111.;  John  C. 
Kunkel;  Orasmus  B.  Matteson,  N.  Y.;  Killian  Miller,  N.  Y.;  Edwin  B.  Morgan, 
N.  Y.;  Justin  S.  Morrill,  Vt.;  Matthias  H.  Nichols,  Ohio;  Jesse  0.  Norton,  111.; 
Andrew  Oliver,  N.  Y.;  John  M.  Parker,  N.  Y.;  Guy  R.  Pelton,  N.  Y.  ;  John  J. 
Perry,  Me.;  John  U.  Pettit,  Ind.;  Benjamin  Pringle,  N.  Y.;  Samuel  A.  Purviance, 
Penn.;  David  Richie,  Penn.;  Alva  Sabin,  Vt.;  Russel  Sage,  N.  Y.;  William  R. 
Sapp,  Ohio;  John  Sherman,  Ohio;  George  A.  Simmons,  N.  Y.;  Francis  E.  Spin- 
ner, N.  Y.  ;  Benjamin  Stanton,  Ohio;  James  S.  T.  Stranghan,  N.  Y.;  Mason  W. 
Tappan,  N.  H.;  Benjamin  B.  <Thurston,  R.  I.;  Lemuel  Todd,  Penn.;  Mark 
Trafton,  Mass.;  Edward  Wade,  Ohio;  Abram  Wakeman,  N.  Y.;  David  S.  Walbridge, 
Mich.;  Henry  Waldron,  Mich.;  Cadwallader  C.  Washburne,  Wis  ;  Elihu  B.  Wash- 
burn,  111.;  Israel  Washburn,  Jr.,  'Me.;  Cooper  K.  Watson,  Ohio;  Wm.  W.  Welch; 
John  M.  Wood,  Me.;  John  Woodruff,  Conn.;  James  H.  Wbodsworth,  111. 


b 


Here  the  Republicans  who  make  such  an  outcry  against  Mr.  Fillmore  for 
signing  a  Fugitive  Slave  Law,  the  spirit  of  which  is  recognized  by  the  con- 
stitution, vote  for  the  same  thing  to  be  extended  over  a  territory  where  the 
constitution  never  anticipated  its  extension.  "  Consistency  is  a  jewel!" 


Hollinger  Coi 
pH8.5 


